More gang activity

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't know about that 99.9% figure, either.

I can, too, because you appear to be saying things like that, also.

Some of DaveS's arguments are snatched possibly out of thin air, but they

make more sense than yours, to me. He's not citing wooly boogers, you are

posing them as fact, not unlike Global Warming, so I guess there is some merit,

looking at it like that, after all.

Edited September 28, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[DaveS]

You can't say 10 people were killed over pot deals gone bad but nobody killed over alcohol deals and expect it to be the pot killed them. The fact that you can buy alcohol legally and cannot pot is the most important part of that equation

You can't say 10 people were killed over pot deals gone bad but nobody killed over alcohol deals and expect it to be the pot killed them. The fact that you can buy alcohol legally and cannot pot is the most important part of that equation

The point of my first sentence is you cannot say pot us a gateway drug and discount alcohol. 99.9% of the hard drug users that started with pot, tried alcohol first

All of us LAW BIDING gun owners know what the laws and penalties are for having a handgun on ourselves while we are DRINKING ALCOHOL, how will LEGALIZING POT effect my RIGHT TO CARRY while "toking a left handed cigarette"?

Answer that?

Dave S

[Tennjed]

All of us LAW BIDING gun owners know what the laws and penalties are for having a handgun on ourselves while we are DRINKING ALCOHOL, how will LEGALIZING POT effect my RIGHT TO CARRY while "toking a left handed cigarette"?

Answer that?

Dave S

It want effect it at all? What are you trying to ask. You cannot learn new laws and penalties? It would be treated the same way?

[Chucktshoes]

I don't know about that first sentence. Yours may be, too.

The drug deals that end up in death are because of the drugs. Don't go blaming money on it. Money is but a tool

for the trade of anything of value, legal or otherwise. blaming it on money is like saying "money is the root of all evil"

Do you really want to go there?

You need to work harder than that for a successful troll.

[Tennjed]

I don't know about that 99.9% figure, either.

I can, too, because you appear to be saying things like that, also.

Some of DaveS's arguments are snatched possibly out of thin air, but they

make more sense than yours, to me. He's not citing wooly boogers, you are

posing them as fact, not unlike Global Warming, so I guess there is some merit,

looking at it like that, after all.

What have I stated as fact that is Woolley booger? Can you back up your claims against me? You also say in one breath that gang bangers will just find another way to make money so legalizing drugs won't effect them. Yet when they kill someone in a deal gone bad it is the drugs fault. The drug is what killed them. So by your reasoning if you took the drugs from the gang bangers you would see less gang deaths because it is the drug killing them. The products they shift their attention to will be less leathal so we will see less deaths right?

I didn't think gambling was fatal, but your logic states if a organized crime bookie kills someone over a gambling debt was gambling that killed them

Edited September 28, 2012 by Tennjed

[DaveS]

It want effect it at all? What are you trying to ask. You cannot learn new laws and penalties? It would be treated the same way?

So if I'm smoking anything...cigarette, doobie, cigar, pipe, crack, smack or skittles....will cops have the right to stop and test me, if I'm carrying a handgun and they see smoke puff away from my face? That is my question. Will I still be able to carry my handgun into a resteraunt that has a smoking section?

Well you're PRO POT, I'm NOT...

Dave S

Edited September 28, 2012 by DaveS

[Tennjed]

So if I'm smoking anything...cigarette, doobie, cigar, pipe, crack, smack or skittles....will cops have the right to stop and test me, if I'm carrying a handgun and they see smoke puff away from my face? That is my question. Will I still be able to carry my handgun into a resteraunt that has a smoking section?

Well you're PRO POT, I'm NOT...

Dave S

I take back what I said earlier, THAT is the biggest stretch I have every read on the Internet. It won't effect your carry anymore than alcohol already does for several reasons. Pot had a different smell than tobacco. Just because a restaurant has a smoking section doesn't mean you can some pot in it. The pot smoke would be regulated just like alcohol. If you state alows carry where alcohol is served then you can carry where pot is served. A restaurant is not going to allow smoking pot but no alcohol sales. If they did it would be no different than a restaurant allowing alcohol but not smoking.

Police are not going to pull over everytime they see someone smoking a cig, they don't have the time. If they come on contact with you they will know within 10 feet if you are smoking tobacco or marijuana. They will not test anyone who is smoking tobacco. You realize it is extremely easy to tell the difference in tobacco and weed from several feet off don't you?

I take it you you tobacco. (i do myself) How do you feel about the push to ban smoking everywhere? There has been some talk about even banning it in your car because some people feel second hand smoke is so bad? Why does someone who believes in gun rights like you do feel that a person who chooses to smoke weed should not be allowed to? The anti pot crowd parralels the anti gun crowd in many areas. It is fueled by public perception. A lot of the people against legalizing pot actually have not done much actually research on the subject just like most people anti gun just do not know much about guns

Edited September 28, 2012 by Tennjed

[DaveS]

I take back what I said earlier, THAT is the biggest stretch I have every read on the Internet. It won't effect your carry anymore than alcohol already does for several reasons. Pot had a different smell than tobacco. Just because a restaurant has a smoking section doesn't mean you can some pot in it. The pot smoke would be regulated just like alcohol. If you state alows carry where alcohol is served then you can carry where pot is served. A restaurant is not going to allow smoking pot but no alcohol sales. If they did it would be no different than a restaurant allowing alcohol but not smoking.

Police are not going to pull over everytime they see someone smoking a cig, they don't have the time. If they come on contact with you they will know within 10 feet if you are smoking tobacco or marijuana. They will not test anyone who is smoking tobacco. You realize it is extremely easy to tell the difference in tobacco and weed from several feet off don't you?

I take it you you tobacco. (i do myself) How do you feel about the push to ban smoking everywhere? There has been some talk about even banning it in your car because some people feel second hand smoke is so bad? Why does someone who believes in gun rights like you do feel that a person who chooses to smoke weed should not be allowed to?

I had no clue...

Educate me.

Dave S

[piercedan]

Man, you guys have stamina!

[DaveS]

Not me...I'm bailing!

I totaly declare Tennjed the winner of this debate. I have spent absolutely too much time and drank too many BEERS in this debate. Need to move on. You can only beat a dead horse so long!

I CONCEDE!!!!

Vote NOPE for DOPE!!!!!

Dave S

[Tennjed]

Not me...I'm bailing!

I totaly declare Tennjed the winner of this debate. I have spent absolutely too much time and drank too many BEERS in this debate. Need to move on. You can only beat a dead horse so long!

I CONCEDE!!!!

Vote NOPE for DOPE!!!!!

Dave S

It is all in good fun enjoy your beer. It is nice to live in a country that allows it.

I am tapping out of this thread to. The weekend is here and it is time to argue football. My beloved Miss. State bulldogs are off this week but I get to watch Bama pound Ole Miss.

HAIL STATE

[DaveS]

GO BAMA!!!

Dave S

[Tennjed]

GO BAMA!!!

Dave S

[Sam1]

Not me...I'm bailing!

I totaly declare Tennjed the winner of this debate. I have spent absolutely too much time and drank too many BEERS in this debate. Need to move on. You can only beat a dead horse so long!

I CONCEDE!!!!

Vote NOPE for DOPE!!!!!

Dave S

Too much to read, can someone give us a truncated version in 20 words or less on how he won this battle?

Edited September 28, 2012 by Sam1

[piercedan]

Nobody. Good points on both sides, but ultimately no concession or overly convincing arguments. Good fight all around though.

[DaveTN]

And for the propel that think it is impossible and dreamland to think it will be legal. 17 states and DC already have legal medical marijuana. Our brothe next door Arkansas has it on the ballot right now. That is a huge shift in public perception and social acceptability.

We have legal medical hydrocodone right now; how does that help the people that are being arrested on felony charges because they don’t have a prescription?

Unless you have AIDS, Cancer, or think you can get a Doctor to write you a script; what good does this do you?

And even if a state passes the laws, what about the Feds? This is what the Feds did to a state provider of medical marijuana. What do you think they will do when Colorado, Washington and Utah try to pass their recreational pot laws?

HELENA, Mont. -- A jury has convicted a medical marijuana provider of drug trafficking charges in a major test of the U.S. government's raids of state-regulated pot dispensaries in Montana.

The jury found Chris Williams guilty Thursday of all eight charges, including conspiracy to manufacture, possess and distribute marijuana and firearms charges.

Williams was in charge of Montana Cannabis' Helena greenhouse, where federal agents confiscated 950 plants in March 2011. That operation was the biggest of the 26 large medical marijuana provider homes, offices and businesses raided that day across the state.

Williams wasn't permitted to argue that he followed state laws regulating medical marijuana. U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen agreed with government prosecutors who said state law doesn't matter in cases involving the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Williams says he plans to appeal.

And Arkansas Governor is preparing you for the staggering costs and they don’t even have it passed yet.

Arkansas Democratic Governor Mike Beebe opposes the ballot initiative because he is concerned about the state's cost to regulate marijuana dispensaries, spokesman Matt DeCample said. But Beebe does not plan to campaign against the measure.

"If I understand what I think I understand about it, if it passes, it's going to require a whole lot of administration from the health department," Beebe told reporters Thursday. "I don't know where we're going to get it from."

[Sam1]

Nobody. Good points on both sides, but ultimately no concession or overly convincing arguments. Good fight all around though.

Thanks, saved me 6 pages of reading

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You need to work harder than that for a successful troll.

I guess you're right!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What have I stated as fact that is Woolley booger? Can you back up your claims against me? You also say in one breath that gang bangers will just find another way to make money so legalizing drugs won't effect them. Yet when they kill someone in a deal gone bad it is the drugs fault. The drug is what killed them. So by your reasoning if you took the drugs from the gang bangers you would see less gang deaths because it is the drug killing them. The products they shift their attention to will be less leathal so we will see less deaths right?

I didn't think gambling was fatal, but your logic states if a organized crime bookie kills someone over a gambling debt was gambling that killed them

I won't waste my time on this rubbish above because someone cognitive skills might be impaired, but I will say without

trying to impair mine that it was the crime bookie who killed him.

[RobertNashville]

Well you kinda did

Okay...I see now...if I didn't say exactly what you wanted me to say to make your point you just extrapolate and say I "kinda said it"

It's pretty difficult to have a real discussion with someone who adds or subtracts from the statements of others so they can then argue against it.

I also have no time for someone who complains about some rules they don't like but sees nothing wrong with making blanket rules against things he doesn't like...that's sort of difficult to reconcile with a nation that is supposed to protect and support individual liberty and freedom...when you have individual freedom and liberty people are allowed to make their own choices; sometimes those choices are bad. If your kid makes a bad choice and abuses alcohol then it's his choice. It would be nice if he made a different choice but making alcohol illegal (so he'll allegedly not have that bad choice to make) or making pot legal so he has, in your opinion a "better" bad choice to make is NOT the answer and frankly, a bit ridiculous to even suggest.

I guess this is where my libertarian leanings start to come out...I have morals based on the Bible and very strong opinions about what is right/wrong...good/evil. However, I have equally strong opinions about the government telling me what I can or can't or should or shouldn't do. I'm the one and the only one who should decide what I do or don't do and if I chose poorly then whatever results from those choices are on me.

I am okay with the drug laws (including those regarding alcohol) as they stand now...I see a CLEAR distinction between someone who enjoys alcohol casually and someone who is addicted and wrecks his life but I'm not going to tell everyone they can't enjoy a beer or a glass of wine just because some will abuse it. Bottom line is, while I don't think our drug/alcohol laws are perfect, I also see no significant reason to change them. But, if we are going to change them then the only change in keeping with the concepts of freedom and liberty as well as the only change based on logic is that it ALL be legal...there is simply no good or logical reason to single out "pot".

With that said, have a nice day and I hope your kid(s) make good choices.

Edited September 29, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, I was just fixing to comment on one of your earlier posts, Robert, about the legalization, which I agree. Anyone

who wants to legalize pot, which I really end up being in that group, has to consider that all things, prescription or not,

should be legalized along with it. Pot is not exclusive in an argument like this and shouldn't be.

Leaning toward a libertarian approach would take the argument in this direction and would not use pot exclusively. The

ones who wish to legalize pot exclusively have no argument in that domain and probably have a vested interest in the

drug, itself. Perhaps they are users and even may wish to use it medicinally for cancer treatment, but that would not

make it a valid argument without legalizing the others.

If our society did legalize all these drugs and other items, there would have to be considerations for safety in a lot of

areas and those would make it very difficult. Other than those areas for safety, take all the warning labels off and

offer the caveat that individual responsibility is the rule when something goes wrong and people get hurt, or die as a

result of their behavior. Does anyone begin to see problems creeping up? I sure do, but that's what happens when

you want your liberty restored.

A lot of things would have to take place before we would ever see this take place. And if you want stuff like this to

happen, you had better be fighting like Hell to destroy any gun legislation going all the way back to the first gun law

and leaving it at the 2nd Amendment. I don't even see many agreeing with me about that around here and I know why.

Some of you might think about that long and hard before you worry about pot being legalized.

[JayC]

I'm sorry but as a person with libertarian leanings how can you say that the current drug laws (and all the bad things that come from them), don't need to be changed?

The vast majority of the bad firearm laws in the last 30 years have come about because of the war on drugs, by taking away that street level violence (and if history is any guide, just as after the end of prohibition you'll need a sharp decrease in street level violence).

How about the infractions of the 4th amendment by our government during the 'war on drugs'?

How about the fact I can't legally buy a saline IV kit for my bug out bag without a prescription because some drug user might use the needles?

Or how about the simple fact that we could reduce the size and scope of government in peoples everyday lives?

I agree, there is no logical argument that one should legalize pot and not all other drugs, including the vast majority of 'prescription' drugs... There *might* be an argument for a limited number of drugs - for example chemo type drugs which are radioactive although I'm not enough of an expert to say even that is a serious enough threat to others to require a prescription.

But, the drug laws need to be changed, even at the state level... if at the very least so I can buy decent cold medicine again without the fear of buying too much in too short of a period of time and landing myself in jail.

Okay...I see now...if I didn't say exactly what you wanted me to say to make your point you just extrapolate and say I "kinda said it"

It's pretty difficult to have a real discussion with someone who adds or subtracts from the statements of others so they can then argue against it.

I also have no time for someone who complains about some rules they don't like but sees nothing wrong with making blanket rules against things he doesn't like...that's sort of difficult to reconcile with a nation that is supposed to protect and support individual liberty and freedom...when you have individual freedom and liberty people are allowed to make their own choices; sometimes those choices are bad. If your kid makes a bad choice and abuses alcohol then it's his choice. It would be nice if he made a different choice but making alcohol illegal (so he'll allegedly not have that bad choice to make) or making pot legal so he has, in your opinion a "better" bad choice to make is NOT the answer and frankly, a bit ridiculous to even suggest.

I guess this is where my libertarian leanings start to come out...I have morals based on the Bible and very strong opinions about what is right/wrong...good/evil. However, I have equally strong opinions about the government telling me what I can or can't or should or shouldn't do. I'm the one and the only one who should decide what I do or don't do and if I chose poorly then whatever results from those choices are on me.

I am okay with the drug laws (including those regarding alcohol) as they stand now...I see a CLEAR distinction between someone who enjoys alcohol casually and someone who is addicted and wrecks his life but I'm not going to tell everyone they can't enjoy a beer or a glass of wine just because some will abuse it. Bottom line is, while I don't think our drug/alcohol laws are perfect, I also see no significant reason to change them. But, if we are going to change them then the only change in keeping with the concepts of freedom and liberty as well as the only change based on logic is that it ALL be legal...there is simply no good or logical reason to single out "pot".

With that said, have a nice day and I hope your kid(s) make good choices.

[RichardR]

Back on the topic of gangs for a moment, anyone else catch the news story about the "Obama boyz" gang shooting on Drudge?

A violent street gang named after a President of the United States of America? I guess Obama is inspiring America's youth.

I wonder if the shooting was over one of those "free Obama phones" that I have been hearing about?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nah, but I did see that one about the million Obama phones in use in Ohio. That may have something to do with

who wins Ohio. Have top go look that other one up.

This one?

Edited September 30, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[RichardR]

Nah, but I did see that one about the million Obama phones in use in Ohio. That may have something to do with

who wins Ohio. Have top go look that other one up.

This one?

Yup that is the one, I think I am going to start a rival gang & call it Romney's Ruffians!